Virginia's Governor vetoed two pro gun bills: MERGED

This is a discussion on Virginia's Governor vetoed two pro gun bills: MERGED within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by garn
To send a prewritten email
Also sent a LTE.
Bet there was a story about the Veto in every newspaper in ...

"The General Assembly session is scheduled to adjourn this Saturday, March 8. Consideration of legislation vetoed by Governor Kaine will take place during the Reconvened Session on Wednesday, April 16."

Two Democrats, who had voted with us originally, buckled. But it didn't make a difference, as we could not get anyone who voted against the bill originally to stand up and vote for the override. We needed to pickup three votes to make the override work.

The odds of saving this bill were slim, but worth the try.

Six Democrats buckled and reversed their earlier vote, causing the override for SB 436 to fail, when it shouldn't have. By buckling, those Democrats are saying that currying favor with the Governor is more important than our right to protect ourselves.

I have skipped reading half the messages in the thread. My question is simply this. What have we got against ensuring that the carrier of a deadly weapon has been checked out (criminal background, mental stability, etc.) and licensed to carry (concealed or open)?

It makes perfect sense to me (call me old fashioned) to have anyone who is going to carry a deadly weapon checked out and licensed. I do NOT believe in licensing the guns. I do believe in licensing the carrier of the gun. And if you are a criminal or a whacko and get caught carrying - do not pass go, do not collect $200 - straight to jail. Five years. No parole.

What am I missing here? Seems to me that it should not matter where or when you carry if you are licensed to do so.

Huh?

Originally Posted by torontogunguy

I have skipped reading half the messages in the thread. My question is simply this. What have we got against ensuring that the carrier of a deadly weapon has been checked out (criminal background, mental stability, etc.) and licensed to carry (concealed or open)?

It makes perfect sense to me (call me old fashioned) to have anyone who is going to carry a deadly weapon checked out and licensed. I do NOT believe in licensing the guns. I do believe in licensing the carrier of the gun. And if you are a criminal or a whacko and get caught carrying - do not pass go, do not collect $200 - straight to jail. Five years. No parole.

What am I missing here? Seems to me that it should not matter where or when you carry if you are licensed to do so.

What have I missed or where is my thinking off track?

Well, we have this great document called the Constitution. Show me where it says "licensed" individuals have the right to keep and bear arms?"

What have we got against ensuring that the carrier of a deadly weapon has been checked out (criminal background, mental stability, etc.) and licensed to carry (concealed or open)?

As others have pointed out, if you can legally own a gun, you can carry it openly in Virgina. No licence, background, or other pre-approval paperwork. OTOH, If someone like a felon is caught carrying, then it is go-to-jail time , assuming the courts don't cut a deal.

Originally Posted by torontogunguy

What have I missed or where is my thinking off track?

The veto that has me the most upset is the veto of the bill to modify Virginia's Restaurant Ban. The Restaurant Ban assumes that just the close proximity to alcohol by non-drinking citizens with Concealed Handgun Permits is a danger to the public safety -- the proximity, not drinking.

I have a CHP. I have been though all the licensing requirements, the background check, and the other paperwork.

Yet, I cannot carry concealed in a restaurant that sell alcohol for on premise consumption.

OTOH, I and anyone who can legally own a gun can carry openly and drink in that same restaurant.

The Restaurant Ban is a petty "get even" move by the Antis who don't like guns and don't want any CHPs.

Their strategy is that open-carry-only laws will cause private property owners to creating more Unarmed Victim Zones, w/o the need for the Antis working for more legislatively established restrictions. They use the cry "don't mix alcohol and guns" to mislead.

As others have pointed out, if you can legally own a gun, you can carry it openly in Virgina. No licence, background, or other pre-approval paperwork. OTOH, If someone like a felon is caught carrying, then it is go-to-jail time , assuming the courts don't cut a deal.

The veto that has me the most upset is the veto of the bill to modify Virginia's Restaurant Ban. The Restaurant Ban assumes that just the close proximity to alcohol by non-drinking citizens with Concealed Handgun Permits is a danger to the public safety -- the proximity, not drinking.

I have a CHP. I have been though all the licensing requirements, the background check, and the other paperwork.

Yet, I cannot carry concealed in a restaurant that sell alcohol for on premise consumption.

OTOH, I and anyone who can legally own a gun can carry openly and drink in that same restaurant.

The Restaurant Ban is a petty "get even" move by the Antis who don't like guns and don't want any CHPs.

Their strategy is that open-carry-only laws will cause private property owners to creating more Unarmed Victim Zones, w/o the need for the Antis working for more legislatively established restrictions. They use the cry "don't mix alcohol and guns" to mislead.

The sheep keep buying it.

A Democrat senator who voted against the bill in the override vote was played on this morning's news on WRVA, he said it pretty succinctly along the lines of: "If it's carried in the open, I can see it and I can tell you to leave." I and a lot of other people called up during the Doc Thompson show to express our feelings on the matter, I think there was only one (anti) guy who thought the bill was bad over the two hours the topic was discussed on the show.

The logic displayed by Governor Kaine and those that voted against these bills goes back to the fundamental premise of "You can't fix stupid". No matter what sound logic and reason we provide to them....they are not going to change. The only choice is in the next legislative election is that we provide as much support as possible to vote them out of office. I have already written the State Delegate (Barlow) in my area and voiced my displeasure at the way he voted. I advised that he would never get my vote (he never got it to before). I'm sure he didn't care. However, in the next election not only will I provide financial support to his opposition, I'll get out and go door to door to gain support against him.

The only way we are going to change these laws is at the ballot box. No amount of persuasion will work...just vote them out of office.

What a ignoramus! That is so stupid not to let someone carry into a restaurant that servers alchol. Here in Colorado it's not an issue. When I go out to dinner, I don't sit at the bar, I sit at a table. I don't drink either if I'm carrying. If I want to go out and have a few drinks, the gun stays at home. I understand not everyone has the common sense to figure that out but incorporate that in the laws so the 99% percent who do have the common sense can carry.